If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Just is just a hunch...based on nothing, but I bet she gets her confirmation, and ends up much more conservative than anyone imagined! I'll bet she will be to Obama what Souter was to Bush, and the dems will be surprised and disappointed.

People change when they put on that black robe. Its happened many times before.

Just is just a hunch...based on nothing, but I bet she gets her confirmation, and ends up much more conservative than anyone imagined! I'll bet she will be to Obama what Souter was to Bush, and the dems will be surprised and disappointed.

People change when they put on that black robe. Its happened many times before.

I suspect that you are right on criminal law cases. On gun ownership I suspect that her opinions will mirror those of her predecessor.

From the NY Times:
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, questioned Judge Sotomayor about an unsigned decision from a three-judge panel she joined in 2004. The decision rejected a drug dealer’s Second Amendment challenge to a law making it a crime for illegal immigrants to possess guns. The ruling was in a footnote, and it quoted an earlier decision of the appeals court saying that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”Judge Sotomayor defended her panel’s ruling. The decision had used the word “fundamental” as a legal term of art rather than in the colloquial sense, she said. In any event, she went on, the decision predated the Supreme Court’s decision last year that first found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
That decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. Even the Heller decision, Judge Sotomayor continued, warming to the task, did not suggest that every gun law is unconstitutional.
Judge Sotomayor also defended a decision she joined in January refusing to apply Heller’s holding, which concerned a federal law, to a New York law banning the possession of a martial arts weapon. The question of whether the right identified in Heller applies to the states has divided the federal appeals courts and is likely to reach the Supreme Court soon
=====
"banning a martial arts weapon" ... a far cry from an assault rifle or an Uzi.

Another interesting thought from the hearings yesterday. If a "wise Latina woman" can render better decisions than a white male, then what of the fact that so many of our Supremes have been white males. Those very people have made some decisions that have been very wise. If we accept that one's gender or ethnicity will influence decisions, I think we step into some murky waters. The rule of law should supercede the rule of one person's ethnicity or gender.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Unfortunately, since the Bork hearings, appointees are coached to reveal absolutely nothing regardless of the questions asked. To hear Roberts testify during his confirmation hearings you would have to believe that he had no opinions on any issue that has ever or will ever come before the court and that there are no circumstances in which he would overturn and clear precedent. And those memos he wrote for Reagan, as well as his employment questionnaire were obviously written by a person with no relationship to the man nominated. Obviously neither is even remotely close to the truth. Alito was a little more open, but not much. Overall, my impression is that Sotomayor has been a little more forthcoming than either Roberts or Alito, but the margin is slim. I'm not happy with that any more than I was happy with the approach followed in prior hearings. However, the only way she will not be nominated is if she says something concrete that provides more ammunition against her. She will try hard not to do that.

Unfortunately, since the Bork hearings, appointees are coached to reveal absolutely nothing regardless of the questions asked. To hear Roberts testify during his confirmation hearings you would have to believe that he had no opinions on any issue that has ever or will ever come before the court and that there are no circumstances in which he would overturn and clear precedent. And those memos he wrote for Reagan, as well as his employment questionnaire were obviously written by a person with no relationship to the man nominated. Obviously neither is even remotely close to the truth. Alito was a little more open, but not much. Overall, my impression is that Sotomayor has been a little more forthcoming than either Roberts or Alito, but the margin is slim. I'm not happy with that any more than I was happy with the approach followed in prior hearings. However, the only way she will not be nominated is if she says something concrete that provides more ammunition against her. She will try hard not to do that.

Jeff, there's no need for questioning and reviewing records....you can just "look into their eyes, and see what kind of heart they have".

Jeff, there's no need for questioning and reviewing records....you can just "look into their eyes, and see what kind of heart they have".

My instincts tell me that heart is black when it comes to Anglo-America. She could help Obama secure longterm power beyond the two term limit by helping him make citizens out of 25 million illegal immigrents. This is a smart Latina woman and she is going to implement her personal agenda, the continued browning of the USA.

They will try and disarm citizens before they try to re-educate them.

Last edited by Franco; 07-15-2009 at 07:53 PM.

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge